Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS JANUARY   16, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

 

 

DANIEL  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON PATRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO,

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

ABSENT:

 

 

 

NANETTE  ALBANESE

 

 

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:

Richard  Pakola, Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

 

This meeting  was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman.

 

Hearings  on this meeting’s  agenda, which  are made  a part ofthis  meeting,  were held  as noted below:

 

PUBLISHED  ITEMS

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

 

 

 

CONTINUED   ITEM:

DECISIONS

 

578 ROUTE  303

70.14 / 4 / 14; LO zone

 

NEW  ITEMS: WILSON

70.0913 153; R-40 zone

ACCESSORY   STORAGE

& PARKING  IN YARDS VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

 

 

REAR  YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA#13-03

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZBA#13-06

 

HINCHCLIFFE

70.09 / 1  / 6; R-40 zone

 

 

 

FERRIELLO

69.18/1 /2;  R-15 zone

LOT WIDTH,  SIDE YARD,               ZBA#l3-07

DISTANCE   BETWEEN  STRUCTURES VARIANCES   APPROVED

APPLICANT   SHALL  FILE A CEVENANT

STATING  THAT THE PROPOSED  STRUCTIJRE WILL NEVER  BE USED  AS A SECOND DWELLING  UNIT

 

BUILDING  HEIGHT                            ZBA#13-08

VARIAN CE APPROVED

WITH  IMPLEMENTATION    OF LANDSCAPE   PLAN  SUBMITTED DATED  10/6/ 12 REVISED   12/27/2012

BY  KARL ACKERMANN,   ARCHITECT

 

 

 

 

–  31t33:0  S)Hl31’t> N’S

~    —

S• 1 :til  L~  Bl•

 

 

 

 

Minutes

Page 2 of  2

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL    BUSINESS:

 

In response to requests from the Orangetown Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the Acting Chairperson executing on behalf of the Board its consent to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations§  617.6 (b)(3) the following applications: smk Erie Subdivision Plan, 86 West Erie Street, Blauvelt, NY 70.13 / l / 21; R-15 zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.

 

 

 

THE DECISIONS RELATED TO THE ABOVE HEARINGS are inserted herein and made part of these minutes.

 

The verbatim minutes, as recorded by the Board’s official stenographer for the above hearings, are not transcribed.

 

 

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at  8:00 P.M.

 

Dated: January 16, 2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

tJ/!1Md2~-

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOVVN OF ORANGETOVVN

 

 

 

By

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY ASSESSOR

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERlNG Rockland County Planning

 

 

 

• §B3’0 S’)!H31·~mtm.,

 

~_!&     L   88

 

B11.l30NVHO  .:10  !i~fJ-1

 

DECISION

 

VARIANCES FROMSECTION 3.11, LO DISTRICT, COLUMN 7, # 2 & # 3

APPROVED

 

To: Paul Val entine

20 Buttonwood   Place

Blauvelt, New  York

10913

ZBA#   13-03

Date:   January  2, 2013

January  16, 2012

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-03:   Application  of#578   Route 303 (Paul  and Nancy  Valentine)  for variances from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Section 3.11, LO District,  Column  7 #2 (Accessory  Storage shall be within  completely  enclosed  buildings)  and #3 (No parking  is permitted  in any required  yard unless  permitted  by any Board);  Section  13.6, Route  303 Overlay District, applies.  The property  is located  at 578 of Route 303, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  70.14,  Block 4, Lot 14 in the LO zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at meetings  held on

‘the following  Wednesdays,  January  2, 2013 and January  16, 2013 at which time the

Board made  the determination   hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

At the January 2, 2013 meeting  Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated  August  29, 2012 signed and sealed by Stephen  F. Hoppe, L.S ..
2. Survey  dated  August  29, 2012 with the latest revision  date of January  8, 2013 signed and sealed by Stephen  F. Hoppe,  L.S ..
3. A letter dated December  11, 2012 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,  Commissioner   of Planning.

4. A letter dated December  14, 2012 from the State of New York Department  of

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P .E., Rockland  County Permit Engineer.

ol I ~

5. A letter dated January  16, 2013 from Paul Valentine  naming  the tenant  of the premises.

 

 

 

At the January  2, 2013 meeting  Ms, Castelli,  Acting  Chairman,  made a motion  to

the Public Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried             ·f?.               ..,,

unam.mous  1 y.                                                                                                                          ·r:rxli-..tO·  ··                     :;:o

;;::<:::                                          >

(() ~        z

a

On advice of  Richard  Pakola,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning  Boardsef    m  ~

Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  applicatii!i   isf-i’l’ f

exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to S1i1R11′     =; Regulations  §617.5 (c) (7);  which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The            21! motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.

Salomon,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

 

At the January  2, 2013 meeting  Donald  Brenner,  Attorney  testified  that the traffic pattern on Route 3 03 would not be changed  by this application  because  the applicant  does not enter or exit the property  from Route 3 03;  that there will be no development  on Route

303; that the landscape  equipment  enters from Railroad  Avenue,  which  runs along side the railroad  tracks; that he thinks  there is one tenant  using the house and the landscape storage but he is not sure; and that he would  request  a continuance  to return to the Board with a plan  showing the types  of storage being  proposed  for the rear of the property.

 

 

578 Route  303 (Valentine) ZBA#13-03

Page 2 of  4

 

 

At the January  16, 2013 meeting  Donald  Brenner,  Attorney  and Paul Valentine appeared  and testified.

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner  testified  that the legal matter  has been resolved;  that there is one person renting  the lot and he and his family  live in the house and it would  be his tmcks/trailers that would be stored in the rear of the property;  and that a revised  site plan has been submitted  which  shows where  the trucks/trailers   would park  and where the outdoor storage would  be located.

 

Paul Valentine  stated that Mr. Moran has been his tenant  for ten years; that the trailers/trucks   would  enter and exit onto Railroad  A venue;  that you cann~t  see the rear of the property  from Route 303; that here  is a mini-mall  on one side of the property  and the railroad tracks  are behind the property;  and that no changes  are being made to the front of the property.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

The Board members  made  personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan  made a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board  found and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if

i

the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and·

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:i:f                d

 

 

 

 

1. The requested

e§  -~-     :!.·

 

..,.:;.      -~

• 3.l l, LO District, Column  7, #2 & #3 (outdoor  storage  and par~      – : GD  ,    ~

 

in yards)   variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  ofthgJ      _,      g

neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The applicants’   lot is long and~e     re    ~

rear of the property  is not visible  from Route 303. The trucks/trailers  will be enteeng ~        ~

and exiting the property  from the rear on Railroad  Avenue,  and an updated  site p]ii    ~   l    :_::

has b_een submitted  which  clearly depicts  the number  of trucks/trailers  and the    ~·   .~,       ~

location  of any outdoor  storage.                                                                                    ‘.         •·       z

 

2. The requested§  3.11, LO District,  Column  7, #2 & #3 (outdoor  storage  and parking in yards)   variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.   The applicants’  lot is long and the rear of the property  is not visible  from Route 303. The trucks/trailers  will be entering  and exiting the property  from the rear on Railroad  A venue,  and an updated site plan has been submitted  which  clearly depicts  the number  of trucks/trailers   and the location  of any outdoor  storage.

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

 

Page  3  of 4

 

 

 

 

4. The requested   § 3.11, LO District,  Cohunn  7, #2 & #3 (outdoor  storage  and parking in yards)   variances,  although  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.  The property  is unique because  it

can be accessed  from Route 303 for the house,  and from the rear onto Railroad

Avenue  for the proposed  trucks/trailers;   however  the two access points  do not connect within  the property;  insuring  that the trucks/trailers   will never access the property

from State Highway  Route  303.

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  ofthe Board of Appeals,  but did not, by itself,  preclude  the granting of the area variances.

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   Inview  of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the

Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested§ 3.11, LO District,  Column  7,

#2 & #3 (outdoor  storage  and parking  in yards)  variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted  by the Board  in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special  Permit by the Board  is limited to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted herein  and subject  to those  conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans, including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity thereof,  of the applicant,  but same have been submitted  to the Board  solely for informational   and verification  purposes  relative to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well  as any other necessary  permits must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time  following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent  any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is iss~i.ed by the Offic~ of Building,  Zoning  and P~annin~_Admini.str~tiM    Enforcement

which  legally permits  such occupancy.                 DJBO   Sl’H3l

–

li;lllt··L·  BJ?:ml

~.:..      _.;._.

 

 

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special  Permit  will lapse if any contemplated  construction of the project  or any use for which the variance  or Special Permit  is granted  is  not substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board  of the Town of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years  of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application for the requested§  3.11, LO District, Column  7,  #2 & #3 (outdoor  storage  and parking  in yards)  variances  was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and carried  as follows:    Mr. Sullivan,

aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye;   Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and  Ms. Castelli,  aye. Ms.

Albanese  was absent.

 

The Administrative   Aide to the Board is hereby  authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town  Clerk.

 

DATED:   January  16,  2013

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY

013ZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR~R.O.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By?1/JtRaAJ~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

l-IlGHWA Y DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

: W10S~113t0 ml.tr!

 

—

~          ‘.T   J>tl’A     .J   –     l.!’lt.’!V.f”>I~j

• • ;·:$.5·.~·w.   -~     ~~

.       ;…                                                                            …..

 

DECISION

 

REAR  YARD  VARIAN  CE APPROVED

 

To: Donald  and Kathy Wilson

22 Colony Drive

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA # 13-06

Date:  January  16, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#13-06:  Application  of Donald  Wilson  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section  3.12;  R-40 District;  Group E, Column  11 (Rear  Yard: 50′  required,  36.8′ existing,   48′ 4″ proposed)   for a 100 sq. ft. addition  to the rear of an existing  single• family residence.  The premises  are located  at 22 Colony  Drive, Blauvelt,  New  York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  70.09, Block 3, Lot 53 in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,   January  16, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Kathy  Wilson  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Proposed  plot plan  and elevations  of the proposed  addition  dated 8/27/2012 signed and sealed  by Jorge L. Lopez, Architect.
2. Zoning  board of Appeals  Decision# 92-45 dated May 27, 1992.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  made  a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

 

On advice of  Richard  Pakola,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality  Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and /or (13); which  does not require  SEQ RA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

 

 

Kathy Wilson  testified  that she would  like to push out her family room by 4 Yz feet; that the room is small; that this is the room the family gathers  in; that she should have done this when she did the other addition  and didn’t;  that hey were granted  a variance  for the rear addition  that they did in 1992 and they thought  they would just  get a permit for this one because  it does encroach  into the rear yard further than the variance  that was granted; that they were surprised  to learn that they would  be required  to get another variance;  and that is why she is before the Board  again.

 

 

 

, D9;JO    S1f’d31S nm

– .,Jfl4  L~, ~;8

.;….         -·-

 

 

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

The Board members  made  personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law ofNew  York. was received.

 

 

Mr. Sullivan  made a motion  to close the Public Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found  and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested  rear yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed addition  bumps  out into the rear yard 4 Yz feet, and is on the interior  of the previously granted  addition  which  extends  further  into the rear yard.

 

2. The requested rear yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The proposed addition bumps  out into the rear yard 4 Yz feet, and is on the interior  of the previously granted addition  which  extends  further into the rear yard.

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested  rear yard variance  is not substantial.

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetowns Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or  improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration   was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself,  preclude  the granting  of the area variances .

 

 

 

 

…..         ‘(‘          “‘ …..  -·-··     ‘.    _ ……      •J;·.’      ,.,,,,     –  ..,.,~··;          T   …       -.      •

 

 

• :m·rl3’0 SJtij3i~mm1

~   —            .,._

tit•     i’   t81•

UQc13t)N\1HO  JO MilO’l.

 

 

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,   that the application  for the requested  rear yard variance  is APPROVED;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall

become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the

minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted  by the Board in accordance with and subject  to those facts shown on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this  hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special  Permit by the Board is limited  to the specific variance  or Special  Permit requested  but only to the extent such approval  is granted

herein and subject to those  conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned

which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building plans,  including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity thereof, of the applicant,  but same have been submitted  to the Board  solely  for informational   and verification  purposes  relative  to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  petiod  of time  following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.   To the extent any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special Permit  will lapse if any contemplated  construction of the project  or any use for which  the variance  or Special Permit  is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board of the Town  of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval  to such project,  whichever  is  later,  but in any event within two years  of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute “substantial implementation”  for the purposes  hereof.

 

,.  …    _,.       –    ….

_ .. ,.,                        r-····

.···-~

 

 

 

‘•to!3“0 Sl~3-m –

.       –  —

• •~.·~m :L     111att.

 

 

 

Wilson

ZBA#13-06

Page    4 of   4

 

 

 

 

 

 

TI1e foregoing    resolution    to  approve   the  application    for the  requested   rear  yard  variance was  presented    and  moved   by  Ms.  Salomon,    seconded   by Ms.  Castelli   and  carried as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Ms. Castelli,  aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

 

The Administrative   Aide to the Board  is hereby  authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   January  16, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TO’NN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

By~

Deborah  Arbo lino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

H!GHWA Y DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGlNEER!NG FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

~:!o      s>I11TIO  ea

–   tB     L~ ~1~ai

 

Ri&fil.3tlNVUO;iO Sij±

 

DECISION

 

 

LOT  WIDTH,   SIDE  YARD,  DISTANCE   BETWEEN    STRUCTURES VARIANCES    APPROVED;    SECTION    10.331 INTERPRETATION      GRANTED PROPOSED    SPACE  NOT  A SECOND   DWELLING    UNIT:  APPLICANT    SHALL SUBMIT  A  COVENANT

 

To:  Jonathan  Hodash  (Hinchcliffe)

60 So. Main Street

New  City, New  York  10956

ZBA#   13-07

Date:  January  16, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 13-07: Application of Robert Hinchcliffe for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-40  District, Group E, Columns 6 (Lot Width: 150′ required,

112.35′ existing), 9 (Side Yard: 30′ required, 6.2′ existing); from Section 5.153

(Distance between structures: 15′ required, 10.4′ existing) and from Section 10.331( An interpretation is requested as to whether proposed project constitutes creation of a second dwelling unit in a detached structure) for additions and alterations to an exiting pool house/garage at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 118

Sunset Road, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as

Section 70.09, Block 1, Lot 6; R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Jonathan Hodash, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated March 5, 2012 revised March 29, 2012 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Architect, (6 pages).

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

On advice of Ric~1ard Pakola, Deputy Town Atto?1e~, counsel to the Z?nin~ B~~   I~       ,_~.,..,\ Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregomg appl~t10W:>   ~ a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SE~),11        ~

pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and /or (13); which do~not      ‘   0

require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomogkn~      ;:

~~-‘

carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. C~l11,3      $

 

aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye. Ms. Albanese was absent.                                                 g   –        _

1

“””‘-       ~J

~

<::>

 

 

Jonathan Hodash testified that the proposal:is to add onto the existing two-car garaf:’;   –                         –                      ~

that they would like to create a pool house at the rear of the existing garage “o/]fy  storage above it; that the parents live in the house and the son is moving back in with them; that he would like to have an office space above the pool cabana and the cabana area is being built for entertaining when the pool is open; that there might be a microwave installed but there will not be a stove; that the space is not being used for a second dwelling unit; that the existing house is large and has five bedrooms; that they will file a covenant stating

that the space will never be used as a second dwelling unit; and that there was not a handicap ramp there when he started this project; that if there is one there now he will add it to the building permit and legalize it.

 

 

ZBA#13-07

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions   of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New  York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan  made a motion  to close the Public Hearing  which motion was seconded  by

Ms.  Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found and concluded  that the benefits to the applicant  if the variancets)   are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant,  for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. 1. The requested  lot width,  side  yard and 5 .15  3  accessory  structure  distance  variances will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties,   The garage  exists and the addition  to the garage to convert  part of it into a cabana will not intrude  on other surrounding  properties.   The applicant  has agreed to sign and file a covenant  stating  that the structure  will never be used as a second dwelling  unit. The applicant  has  agreed to apply for a building

permit for the handicap  entrance that has already been constructed  in the front of the house.  No certificate  of occupancy  will be issued  until a covenant  is filed and the handicap  entrance  is legalized.

 

2. 2. The requested  lot width,  side yard and 5.153    accessory  structure  distance  variances will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions in the neighborhood  or district.  The garage  exists  and the addition to the garage to convert part of it into a cabana will not intrude  on other surrounding  properties.   The applicant  has agreed to sign and file a covenant  stating that the structure will never be used as a second  dwelling  unit.  The applicant  has agreed to apply for a building

permit  for the handicap  entrance  that has already been constructed  in the front of the house.  No certificate of occupancy  will be issued· until a covenant  is filed and the handicap  entrance  is legalized.

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  lot width,  side yard and 5.153    accessory  structure distance  variances are not substantial,    and afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

5. The applicant  shall legalize  the handicap  entrance that was built without’. a building pe~t     before a certificate  of occupancy  ~11 be,.i$.$JJeM~lJ~Jlfil!?Use/cabana

addition  to the garage.                                      ne.:ro            –               .

,8′ ~(al·  L ~–   ~~~

.mifJEaMV}j 0 jO fi.fi,Q:J.

 

 

ZBA#l3-07

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

6. 6. The applicant shall execute  and submit  a restrictive  covenant  with the Town of Orangetown  acceptable in form and substance  to the Town Attorney  which shall be recorded  in the County Clerk’s  Office,  to the effect that the proposed  pool house/ cabana shall never be occupied  as a second  dwelling uni

 

7. 7. The applicant purchased  the property  subject to Orangetown’s Zoning  Code (Chapter

43)  and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements, so the alleged  difficulty was self-created, which  consideration was relevant  to the decision  of the Board of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony and documents presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested   lot width, side yard and Section  5.153  accessory  structure distance  variances  are APPROVED with the following Specific  Conditions:  (1) The applicant  shall legalize  the handicap entrance,  that was built without a building  permit, before  a certificate  of occupancy will be issued for the pool house/cabana addition  to the garage;  (2) The applicant  shall execute  and submit  a restrictive  covenant  with the  Town  of Orangetown,  acceptable   in form and substance  to the Town Attorney,  which shall be recorded  in the County  Clerk’s  Office to the effect

that the proposed  pool house/  cabana shall never be occupied  as a second dwelling  unit;

and FURTHER RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon shall become effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

(i) The approval of any variance  or Special  Permit  is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans  submitted and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove recited or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance  or Special Permit  by the Board is limited to the specific variance  or Special  Permit  requested  but only to the extent such approval  is granted

herein  and subject  to those conditions,  if any, upon which such approval was conditioned which are hereinbefore  set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans, including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity  thereof: of the applicant,  but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification  purposes  relative to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time  following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated in this decision.  To the extent any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits where  any such condition imposed  should, in the sole judgment  of the building  department, be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder. Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a, Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning  and Planning  Administration and Enforcement which legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

ZBA#13-07

Page    4 of 4

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special Permit will lapse  if any contemplated  construction of the project or any use for which  the variance  or Special Permit  is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year  of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board of the Town  of Orangetown  granting  any required final approval to such

project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years  of the filing of this decision.

Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit  with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of

Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  lot width,  side yard and §5.153 accessory  structure  distance  variances   are APPROVED  with the following SPECIFIC  CONDITIONS:   (1) The applicant  shall legalize  the handicap  entrance that was built without  a building  permit before  a certificate  of occupancy  will be issued for the pool house/cabana   addition  to the garage;  (2) The applicant  shall execute  and submit a restrictive  covenant  with the  Town  of Orangetown,  acceptable   in form and substance to the Town Attorney,  which  shall be recorded  in the County  Clerk’s  Office to the effect that the proposed  pool house/  cabana  shall never be occupied  as a second dwelling unit; was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Ms. Castelli,  aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

The Administrative  Aide to the Board is hereby authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   January  16, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUlU)ING  INSPECTOR ~B.vW.

By—-‘-‘-”.h<IS,A.£…-“‘—‘-==—-‘-“‘-b-LY” Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

1-IIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVJRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PO, ACABOR

 

 

 

 

• ~f~O    S)Ui31’~ DlB.

 

-~  …    lm     L··BIE

 

tiliBB~-HVliO30 86’1

 

DECISION

 

BUILDING HEIGHTVARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: John and Mary Perriello

421 Orangeburg  Road

Pearl River, New  York  10965

ZBA#   13-08

Date:  January  16, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-08: Application  of  John and Mary Perriello  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning),  Section  3.12, R -15 District,  Group M, Column  l Z (Building  Height;  16′ permitted,  24′  8  % “proposed) for additions  and alterations  to an existing  single-family residence.  The premises  are located  at 421 Orangeburg  Road,  Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   69.18, Block  1, Lot 2; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,   January  16, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

John Perriello  and Karl Ackerman,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans dated  10/7/2012  with the latest revision  date of 12/27/2012 signed and sealed by Karl Ackermann,  Architect.
2. Survey  dated July 20, 1987 by Thomas  A. Donovan,  P.L.S ..
3. Five computer  generated  pictures  of the house  and surrounding  area.
4. Landscaping  plan  dated  10/7.2012  with the latest revision  date of 12/27/2012  by

Karl Ackermann,  Architect.

 

Mr. ‘Sullivan, Chairman,  made  a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

On advice  of  Richard  Pakola,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type  II action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and /or (13); which  does not require  SEQ RA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Albanese  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

 

 

Karl Ackermann,  Architect,  testified  that the site has a 16′ side yard and because  of that side yard the building  height  is restricted  to 16′ and the proposed  addition is 24′  8   % ” high’  that the plans were submitted  and a building  permit  was issued; that there was a complaint  and new plans were submitted  with the height measurements   on them; that the comer  of foe house requires  a height  variance;  that they are removing  the existing  garage and rebuilding  it in a different  location  that meets  zoning requirements;  that the shed in rear of the lot will remain;  that they are planning  to install  a six foot fence and a

landscape  buffer;  and that the attic is unfinished  storage  space.

 

John Perriello  testified  that he has a building  permit  and after the work was started he was told that he needed  a variance  for height;  that it would  be an economic ..hardship if hehad to change the roof; and that they have continued  working  t()’Cio~~ everything  in..whifo · they were waiting  for the meeting.                                                 ·   ·    ”   ··   ·    ·  · · ·-    ..

• ·~·~-~s·~o ·~no-~

&i J, Ii   .L ·_    -~-

, –   —      –                                                      _·       –                                                1

fi1i.~3$M’1H0~Odil··

 

 

ZBA#l3-08

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

Mr. Sullivan  made  a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded by

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board  found and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested building  height  variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The building

permit  was issued  in error and it would be an economic  hardship  to change the proposed  roof line. The majority  of the proposed  addition  is set far enough  back from the side yard that it does not require  a height  variance  and the applicant  has submitted a landscaping  plan that he will implement.

 

2. The requested building  height variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   The building  permit  was issued  in error and it would be an economic  hardship  to change the proposed  roofline. The majority  of the proposed  addition  is set far enough  back from the side yard that it does not require  a height  variance  and the applicant  has submitted  a landscaping  plan that he will implement.

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested  building  height,  although  somewhat  substantial,   afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.  The applicant  has submitted  a landscape  plan that shall be implemented.

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetowri’s  Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or  improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration   was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself,  preclude  the granting  of the area variances .

 

.. ,…… ,·..:_’   –   ~     :

 

 

ZBA#13-08

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  building  height variance  is APPROVED  with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION  that the landscape  plan by Karl Ackermann,  Architect,  dated  10/7/2012  revised  12/27/2012  shall be implemented  and completed  before the issuance  of a certificate  of occupancy;  and FURTHER RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be

deemed rendered  on the date of adoption by the Board  of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted  by the Board  in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special  Permit by the Board  is limited  to the specific variance  or Special  Permit requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted herein  and subject to those  conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans,  including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity  thereof,  of the applicant,  but same have been submitted  to the Board  solely for informational  and verification  purposes  relative  to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained within  a reasonable  period  of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made  until, and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which  legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special Permit  will lapse  if any contemplated   construction of the project  or any use for which  the variance  or Special Permit  is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board  of the Town of Orangetown   granting  any required  final approval to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within two years  of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit  with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

 

‘  ~~O     S1181’~lam

 

 

.;-;

IE     L  -~•

 

aGiI.B:c~lNYHO .d:O  l!!W.

 

 

 

 

 

Perriello

ZBA#l2-08

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  building  height variance  with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION  that the landscape  plan by Karl Ackermann, Architect,  dated  10/7/2012  revised  12/27/2012  shall be implemented  and completed before the issuance  of a certificate  of occupancy  was presented  and moved by Ms.

Castelli,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Mr. Bosco, aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and  Ms. Castelli,  aye. Ms. Albanese  was absent.

 

The Administrative   Aide to the Board  is hereby  authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   January  16, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR -R.A.O.

 

By–+–.!.L–“~.!L…::.!.L…~~’I/f/ Deborah  Arbo lino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVlRONMENT AL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

1  3~t:r.:Jo   SJ~na  mwm. jc:fll    !   -• UBJ3’3M\fHOdO &Ul